In re Rudy P.
Filed 6/14/06 In re Rudy P. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| In re RUDY P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUDY P., Defendant and Appellant. | E038582 (Super.Ct.No. RIJ104295) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Jean P. Leonard, Judge. Affirmed.
Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On April 11, 2005, a petition subsequent was filed by the District Attorney of Riverside County, which alleged in paragraphs 1 and 2 that the minor violated Penal Code section 12101, subdivision (a), minor in possession of a firearm, and Health and Safety Code section 11378, possession for sale of methamphetamine. The district attorney also filed a special allegation pursuant to Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b).
Counsel was appointed for the minor and, thereafter, on May 16, 2005, at the conclusion of a contested jurisdictional proceeding, the juvenile court sustained the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 and found to be true the criminal street gang allegation.
On July 19, 2005, the minor, again represented by counsel, was found to be a person described under Welfare and Institutions Code section 734, and he was committed to the California Youth Authority.
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the minor an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
/s/ RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
/s/ GAUT
J.
/s/ KING
J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Apartment Manager Lawyers.
